Tyranny of Detail in Fine Art Photography

Share

Today’s post is actually based on a short note I wrote to myself while doing a workout. Here’s what the note says:

A fine art photo should be interesting even without lots and lots of detail.

There are many fine art photos in the art world that were taken with large or medium format film cameras of sometimes banal subject matter that are really only interesting because of the details you can see when it’s printed or displayed very large. This has set up the expectation that fine art photos necessarily have to be taken with large or medium format film cameras or else they’re not truly “fine art” photography.

There has been some backlash to this trend with the iPhone photo exhibits and books that have come out (iPhones take small 3 megapixel and 5 megapixel digital photos). But I think this is a novelty and still not generally accepted in the fine art photography world.

My own position on this is that a photo should be interesting even without lots of excruciating detail or else it’s not really that interesting from an art standpoint. However, I concede that some level of fine detail may be necessary to accurately see and appreciate what makes a captured image interesting–e.g., the details of a facial expression, intricate plant life, or a some manufactured artifact. Sometimes, though, a blurred image with very little fine detail can be quite powerful and engaging.

The main point I’m making is that it’s not necessary that a photograph be taken with a large or medium format film camera to be a fine art photograph worthy of collecting or hanging on a wall. A powerful or engaging image speaks for itself and can be the object of fine art appreciation regardless of what type of camera (or other type of image recording device for that matter!) was used to capture it.

This isn’t a revolutionary idea in any way, but I think it needs to be said and reinforced from time to time because there are forces out there that keep trying to make fine art photography somewhat “exclusive” by pushing for the large film requirement in order for photos to be “legitimate” collectible fine art photography.



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Choosing Lenses for Wedding Photography: Specific Recommendations

Share

There seems to be a lot of interest in choosing lenses for wedding photography. I am asked this question by colleagues and I’ve noticed a number of people come to this blog looking for this information.

I addressed this question in a previous post, but I would like to list specific recommendations based on the camera or cameras you own. Unfortunately, I will only be doing this for Canon DSLR equipment, because that’s what I own and am most familiar with. If you’re a Nikon (or some other brand) camera user, you may still be able to find and use the equivalent lenses that apply to your camera.

When I think about lenses for wedding photography, I like to break the typical wedding day up into the separate stages: i.e., getting ready, pre-ceremony, ceremony, post-ceremony, group formals, and reception (I sometimes further break reception down into early and late). Also, it makes a difference whether the ceremony and/or reception is indoors or outdoors.

As I start composing this post, I realize there are a *lot* of considerations I could list based on the specific circumstances of the particular wedding you’re shooting. But I don’t have the time to write “that” tome right now (maybe an e-book later on??).

So, I’ll go with a more general guideline sort of post.

Outdoor Ceremony and Reception
If it’s an outdoor ceremony and reception, and you’re not taking any “getting ready” shots, this is the easiest scenario there is. You just need a good quality zoom lens and it doesn’t have to be particularly fast (i.e., it doesn’t have to have a large maximum aperture). If you’re using two cameras and one of them is a full-frame (e.g., a Canon 5D), put a 24-105 f/4 IS on the full-frame camera and a 70-200 f/4 (IS or non-IS) on the other camera and you’ve got great outdoor coverage!

If you’re looking for an inexpensive combination that still gives decent quality, using a 18-55 IS and a 55-250 IS lens (these are inexpensive, but good quality plastic EF-S lenses) on one or two Digital Rebels or Canon 20D/30D/40D/50D series cameras (these are all 1.6x crop factor cameras) can work quite well.

Indoor Getting Ready & Pre-Ceremony
Once we move indoors, I find it necessary to have at least f/2.8 constant maximum aperture lenses. Also, you want to be able to go quite wide (at least 24mm, full-frame equivalent). A 24-70 f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera or the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens on a 1.6x crop factor camera will cover these shots quite nicely. I’m particularly fond of the 16-35 f/2.8 lens (on either a full-frame or 1.3x crop factor Canon 1D series camera), but then you’ll probably want to make sure you have a second camera with a lens somewhere in the 50 to 100mm range (e.g., a 85mm f/1.8).

Indoor Ceremony
You should be prepared for the indoor ceremony location to be dark. If isn’t, you’ll be fine with lenses that can handle a dark indoor setting. The reverse (being prepared for an indoor setting with ample light, but then finding out it isn’t so), can be quite problematic!

Now, indoor ceremonies can occur in anything from large, palatial churches to small conference-sized rooms. In almost any scenario, the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) lens is your friend! You’ll also want to get some wide shots with your 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 or 17-55 f/2.8 IS lenses. I always shoot ceremonies with two cameras and two lenses. However, you could get away with just a 24-70 f/2.8 (on a full-frame camera) or a 17-55 f/2.8 IS (on a 1.6x crop factor camera) if the ceremony isn’t occurring in a huge indoor facility…*or* if you’re able to move around very freely without disturbing the wedding officiant or the rest of the ceremony audience.

Post-Ceremony (Indoor and Outdoor)
After the ceremony, there may be a receiving line; and this receiving line may or may not occur outdoors (depends on weather and the ceremony facility’s particular configuration). This is another case where it’s best to be prepared for low light conditions, though you may end up outdoors with great light. The lenses you used for the ceremony will usually work fine here.

Group Formals
The main consideration here is to be able to go quite wide in case you’re taking the formals in cramped quarters with a large group. You’re going to want to use a relative small aperture to keep everyone in focus; so a f/2.8 lens here isn’t necessary. However, since the formals often happen right after the ceremony, using the 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, or 17-55 f/2.8 lens that is already on your camera should work quite well. (Note: the full-frame equivalency of 17mm on a 1.6x crop factor camera is 27.2mm; this may not be wide enough for the very largest group in a cramped indoor area. You may want to carry a very wide prime lens for such instances if you’re only working with 1.6x crop factor cameras.)

Indoor Reception
Indoor receptions tend to occur at night in dark rooms with low lighting. In addition, you’re often photographing people moving around (e.g., dancing) in this darkness! Until it gets truly dark at the reception (sometimes receptions begin with lots of light streaming in through windows or with all the lighting turned way up)–or if you don’t mind relying on flash or off-camera lighting–you can often get by with the lenses you used for the ceremony (i.e., 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8, and/or 70-200 f/2.8).

Though I use flashes and off-camera lighting for some of my reception photos, I don’t like taking *all* of them with “superficial” lighting I have generated. As the evening wears on and it becomes totally dark outside, I take out some large maximum aperture prime lenses to capture some indoor, existing low light shots. There are many to choose from. Some typical choices: 24 f/1.4, 28 f/1.8, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2 or f/1.4, 85 f/1.2 or f/1.8, 100 f/2, and 135 f/2, to name a few.

The *really* expensive lenses here ($1200 and more) are the 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.2. Personally, I hate having too much money wrapped up in one fixed focal length; there’s no one focal length that I use enough to justify the cost of these lenses. I think the 50 f/1.4 is a good buy and a good lens to have around. The other fast primes I listed are more affordable, but are a matter of personal choice.

Whichever fast prime lenses I decide on, I start putting on the camera as the reception wears on. I think it’s important to keep one relatively wide zoom lens around for any wide-angle photos you may need to take with flash or off-camera lighting, like the tossing of the bouquet across the width or length of the dance floor. I try to offload the 70-200 f/2.8 lens to my car if possible because who needs to be carrying around all that weight!

Overall Recommendations
If you’re like me, you own a bunch of these lenses and you choose a different combination to bring to each wedding, depending on the particular circumstances of that wedding. For me, my main challenge is to choose the most efficient combination of lenses for each wedding that allows me to take all the types of photos I’ll want to take without having *all* of my lenses with me!

Now, if you’ve got a limited budget for camera equipment to be used for photographing weddings (which even I have, but sometimes don’t admit to myself…;-), here’s what I would recommend buying:

1) You pretty much need one or two f/2.8 maximum aperture lenses, unless you *never* photograph indoor weddings.

If you’ve got a 1.6x Digital Rebel or 20D/30D/40D/50D series camera, buy the kinda expensive but high quality 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. If you’ve got a 1.3x crop factor 1D series camera, buy the 16-35 f/2.8 lens. If you’ve got a full-frame 5D series or 1DS series camera, buy the old standby 24-70 f/2.8 lens. You can buy these used if you need to save money (I do this sometimes).

I really like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, and would recommend you buy it whether you’ve got a full-frame, 1.3x, or 1.6x camera. However, this is an expensive lens. For a less expensive “work-around”, consider the 100 f/2 or 135 f/2 prime lenses to be your “go to” telephoto lenses. The 100 f/2 is cheaper and probably a better choice if you have a 1.6x crop factor camera (the full-frame equivalency is 160mm on a 1.6x camera).

2) Get the 50 f/1.4 prime lens. It’s the only f/1.4 lens you can get for under $1000 (it’s less than $400!). And it’s a very flexible focal length: it’s a “normal” lens on a full-frame camera, it’s the equivalent of 65mm on a 1.3x crop factor camera, and it’s equivalent to 80mm on a 1.6x crop factor camera.

With these 3 lenses and your 1-2 cameras, you can do a very nice job photographing most weddings, indoor or outdoor.

When/if you start to get more money to invest in lenses, you can start to branch out to some of these other potentially very useful lenses. For example, a good one for general outdoor, one camera use is the 24-105 f/4 IS L.

That’s it for now. Good luck!



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Photographers: What We’re Selling

Share

If almost anyone can afford a decent digital SLR camera + lens, what is it we/you’re selling as a person trying to make a living–or, at least, a partial income–from photography?

Well, one thing you’re not selling–at least not in an “exclusive” way–is the ability to generate photos or digital images; almost anyone can do this now. And even some of the lower-end digital SLR camera models can generate quite usable images for stock, weddings, and/or portraiture.

And since digital makes possible immediate and/or almost immediate review of images taken, even amateurs can be quite sure whether they’re getting good, properly exposed images or not. So, it’s more difficult to make the case that you need a professional photographer to make sure the camera equipment is producing images that look good from a technical standpoint. I’m pretty sure no one would want to hire a true novice in this regard, but the learning curve has certainly flattened out.

Now, being able to “operate” the equipment does not assure great photos, right? I don’t think anyone would argue with this. However, having equipment that is better than a compact/point-and-shoot digital camera can certainly help *anyone* make better photos….especially if they’re photographing moving targets or photographing in places with low light; it’s in these two areas that compact/point-and-shoot camera often come up short.

One area that I think still requires quite a bit of technical mastery to get right is the use of flash and external lighting for indoor–especially dark indoor–photography. Purely “natural light” practitioners will often run into difficulties at dark, nighttime and/or indoor receptions.  Having a professional for such events can make a significant difference in the quality of the photos.

Now, even though I’ve downplayed the importance of equipment, the more expensive professional equipment does make *some* difference in terms of image quality, focusing speed, and ability to take photos in lower light. This is especially true for indoor events. The more expensive equipment *will* yield a higher percentage of “keepers”, all other factors being equal.

Okay, now for the sake of argument, let’s say the event is purely outdoors and the difference in image quality and focusing speed between the consumer camera equipment and the professional equipment isn’t significantly noticeable to the client. What’s left?

It’s that “photographic eye” thing, right? That thing that tells the photographer what to take a photo of and what the client sees as the intangible “thing” that makes a photo good and/or pleasing, right?

Well, the trouble is that many budding photographers have–or claim to have, or maybe their friend or spouse claims they have it–that “photographic eye”. This is not exclusive to professional photographers. In fact, some professional photographers may have lost that “eye” because they’ve taken too many hundreds or thousands of photos and have become “desensitized image factories”!

Some of that “eye” thing may be related to the amount of enthusiasm the photographer still has for the art of photography. Beginners often have lots of this enthusiasm and it sometimes can make up for what they lack in photographic experience.

In actuality, professional photographers often go through fluctuations in enthusiasm; it’s usually not a static “have” or “not have” commodity. It comes and goes like it does with any long-term activity pursued by a human.

Really, I think it’s *not* the photographic eye, per se, that you’re paying the professional for; even a good amateur should have that. With a professional, what you’re paying for, is a well-established photographic vision. Whereas an amateur photographer is typically experimenting with different styles, viewpoints, post-processing, etcetera…a professional has found his or her strength and developed it to a high degree.

When you hire a professional photographer, the photos s/he delivers will be *very* similar to the sample portfolios and galleries s/he has shown you. There’s a consistency in vision that the photographer has carried out over and over. You, as the customer, know and can be sure of what you’ll get when you hire this photographer. This photographer has shown s/he will deliver consistently and what the end product will look like. If you, as the customer, like what you see, you can be quite sure you’ll get the results you want when you hire this photographer.

So, photographers, what are we selling? A well-established photographic vision.

Does this mean a professional photographer can’t experiment like an amateur can? No, I don’t think that’s the case. Even the professional’s “experimentations” will carry his or her signature vision or style. S/he can’t get away from this vision or style; it’s who s/he is as an established photographer…:-).



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Is Photography Over?

Share

San Francisco’s Museum of Modern Art is hosting a symposium in which 13 invited participants discuss the question: “Is Photography Over?”

Rather than fear such questions (which you might if you’re a photographer or interested in being a photographer), I think it’s good to embrace and explore them–i.e., I think it’s a healthy exercise. You can see the participants’ initial written responses to the question here.

A number of the commentators state that it depends on what is meant by “photography” and what is meant by “over”. Let me try…

Photography: “Using a camera to make art and/or to make money”
Over: “Photos no longer considered an art form or salable product

“Is Photography Over? Nah, just crippled and metamorphosing, I think.



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Fashion Show Photography: Even more lessons learned

Tags

, ,

Share
2010 Fashion Show Photo

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 500 ISO, 1/400 sec

So I shot my annual fashion show…the one I’ve been doing the past 5 years. It’s always in early Spring, so I tend to use it as a warm-up for wedding and portrait season, and also to test new equipment. I titled this post “Even *more* lessons learned” because I’ve blogged about fashion photography lessons learned in a previous post.

Honestly, my favorite part is capturing back stage candids (my *next* blog post will feature my back stage photos and lessons, so stay tuned…). Photographing the show is mostly a matter of workin’ the equipment: bam, bam, bam! Sure, this machine-like gun operation of my camera and lenses is a relatively good way to see what the equipment can and cannot do, but it’s not particularly creative. That said, I do tend to look for something other than the straight on, one model filling the frame types of shots; it makes it more interesting for me.

Anyway, this year I decided to shoot the whole show (well, OK, I was only there until the first intermission) with one lens and one camera. In previous years, I’ve shot with two cameras, one connected to a 24-70 zoom lens and the other to a 70-200 zoom lens, and stood about 8 feet away from the end of the runway (i.e., quite near it) with 20 other photographers.

My plan this year was to stand further back on a small step ladder with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens attached to my new Canon 1D Mark IV that I wanted to test out. I placed the ladder adjacent to the corner of the stage where in years past, the models came for their final poses before returning back up the runway.

2010 Fashion Show Photo

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 500 ISO, 1/400 sec

Unfortunately, the show organizers decided to switch things up; they decided to have models end up at the “other” corner of the stage before returning back up the runway. I, of course, didn’t realize this until the show started and I saw what was happening.

So, lesson learned: talk to fashion show organizers each year about the planned “traffic pattern” on the catwalk because it may not stay the same from year to year. It’s not always easy to find a fashion show representative who actually knows this sort of information; but it’s worth the effort. Also, if you see a designated show videographer in some optimal, cushy location near the stage or on an elevated platform, you can be pretty sure *he’ll* know!

2010 Fashion Show Photo

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 1600 ISO, 1/400 sec

Anyway, I didn’t want to stay at the transition corner; I wanted to be at the final posing corner. So I moved my step ladder in the aisle toward the other stage corner. Well, wouldn’t you know that someone in the audience was pretty darned annoyed at where I was standing on my ladder and told me so.

Because I didn’t really want to be yet another annoying photographer getting in everyone’s way, I crouched down the rest of the show (well, the rest of the first half of the show) and took many photos of the models on the stage with audience heads creeping up ever-so-slightly into the bottom part of the photos, sometimes obscuring the model’s feet. This wasn’t optimal, obviously, but some of the designers and models still bought my photos; so it wasn’t a total wash.

2010 Fashion Show Photo

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/3.2, 2000 ISO, 1/400 sec

What worked and what would I do differently next time?

First, I still like standing back further from the stage–than the other 20-30 photographers taking close-ups of the models right *at* the stage–and using one camera and one long telephoto lens (for me, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS). This allows me to more easily get photos of the models almost anywhere on the stage and they don’t all of to be close-ups. I noticed one photographer was sharing the stand the videographer was on, which was in a perfect location of my one telephoto lens strategy. I’ll have to do some sucking up to the videographer next year…:p.

Compared to last year, instead of shooting in manual exposure mode with a fixed ISO, I shot using auto ISO. The lighting on the runway is quite uneven; so a fixed manual exposure doesn’t work too well, unless you’re only taking photos at the end of the runway. Even then, there are differences depending on where the model is standing. I’ve noticed when I’m shooting with a longer lens, the camera does a better job with exposure because no one part of the scene–which may be quite a bit darker or lighter than the rest of the scene (this commonly happens when the model is wearing white or black clothing or has particularly pale or dark skin)–dominates the frame as it does when you’re close up.

2010 Fashion Show Photo

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 1600 ISO, 1/400 sec

I should explain a little more about my camera setting: I was using a Canon 1D Mark IV, which allows you to put the camera in manual mode, but with the ISO set to Auto. The great thing about this is that you can put the aperture and shutter speed at some fixed settings (e.g., f/3.2 and 1/400 sec) and let the camera adjust exposure by raising or lowering the ISO. In effect, it’s like you’re able to shoot in both aperture priority and shutter priority simultaneously. I found that keeping the aperture relatively large (f/2.8 – f/3.5,  mostly to keep the ISO from going too high) and the shutter speed relatively high (1/200-1/400 sec, especially when photographing the models *while* they moved down the runway) worked out quite well.

2010 Fashion Show Photo

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/3.2, 640 ISO, 1/400 sec

If I didn’t have a camera that does auto ISO in manual mode, I’d probably shoot in aperture priority mode and keep the shutter near it’s max…again, if I’m using a relatively long/telephoto lens.

That’s it for now. My next blog post (within the next week) will feature my back stage photos and lessons. In the meantime, I’ll finish this post with a few more shots of the show (click on the thumbnails to see them larger).



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Panasonic DMC-FP8: ultra-compact with price, quality & performance I can live with

Share

In one of my last posts, I think I made it clear I was giving up on finding a small, pocketable digital camera I liked.

Well, the funny thing is, I keep finding myself in situations where I want to take some photos (mostly while with my children) and the only camera I have available is the one in my cell phone. First, there was the one in my Blackberry which wasn’t very good, but at least it was 2 megapixels. Now there’s the one in my current phone that only takes 640×480 images and you can’t even get them off of the phone without paying to send them to yourself via email (it’s a prepay phone)! Trying to take a decent photo with a cell phone has *really* lowered the bar on what’s acceptable in terms of features and even–to some degree–what’s acceptable in terms of image quality.

I was noticing that the form factor of my cell phones was making it *way* easier to have them with me than any of my cameras, digital or film. Also, people out in public barely even notice if you pull out a cell phone (or something that looks like a cell phone) to take a photo; practically everyone is carrying around a cell phone or an mp3 player that is rectangular and looks like a pack or cigarettes or small deck of cards.

My first thought was to get a good camera phone (like an iPhone) and just use it as a camera (forget the actual cell phone plan, I’m not giving up my cheap prepay plan). But camera phone manufacturers need to make compromises to fit a camera along with a phone into a small rectangular space. Sure, there are camera phones with decent digital cameras, but if you buy a dedicated digital camera, you’re bound to get a much better camera for the same price.

So, I figured I wanted a relatively thin, rectangular device without large, protruding parts that I could use to take reasonably good digital photos costing less than $200, so I could carry it around everywhere and not have to worry about damaging an expensive ($400+) piece of electronics.

I had a Panasonic LX3 for a while that I mostly liked. What didn’t I like?

  1. I was hoping for quality and performance that would rival my Digital Rebel but in a more compact form. I discovered compact digital cameras simply can’t compete with digital SLRs.
  2. The lens on the LX3 sticks out pretty far and makes it not very pocketable.
  3. It’s a relatively expensive camera (around $500), so I couldn’t have it banging around in a coat pocket or small camera bag or whatever without having to worry about it more than I would want to.

I also owned a Canon S90 for a couple of months. While it was definitely slimmer and more pocketable than the LX3 and its images had much less noise than the LX3’s at high ISOs (800-3200), I was quite disappointed in its focusing speed and accuracy–definitely not as good as the Panasonic. And again, I was carrying around a camera that was pretty expensive ($400+), so I had to worry about it more than I’d like to.

Another thing I’d like to mention about these compact cameras with large maximum apertures (both the LX3 and S90 go as large as f/2, and this large aperture tends to make them more expensive) is don’t expect to get the sort of shallow depth-of-focus you can get with a digital SLR; the sensors are just too small in comparison to achieve a nice bokeh. The nice thing about large apertures on compact cameras is they help to keep ISOs lower; they don’t do much for shallow DOFs…unless the subject is *very* close to the camera.

So anyway, after getting over this fantasy that a compact camera could perform anywhere near a digital SLR in terms of things like shallow depth-of-focus or focusing on moving targets, I’ve come to realize there’s still a place in my photographic life for a compact digital camera. And the requirements have finally become clearer:

  • Small enough to fit into a shirt or front jean pocket (1 inch or less in thickness)
  • Flat and smooth with no large protruding parts; something like my Blackberry or an iPhone
  • A flush lens. Even though there are many cameras with lenses that are flush until you turn the camera on (then the lens zooms outward from the camera), once that lens zooms out, it functionality as a camera is pretty obvious to everyone around you. The one thing–maybe the only thing–I like about the camera in my cell phone is no lens sticks out and so it’s less obvious that you’re using it to take a picture.
  • Reasonably fast and accurate auto-focusing on non-moving subjects: still objects or children sitting or standing still…or at least not moving too fast.
  • Less than $200. My cell phones have been worth less than $200, so I don’t have to worry so much about having them with me in all sorts of environments and weather conditions.
  • Reasonably fast and wide lens. To me, a f/2.8 lens is as fast as I need; f/4 gets a little slow and f/5.6 is definitely too slow for indoor settings. I liked the 24mm (full-frame equivalent) on the wide end of the LX3’s zoom range; however, I find that 28mm is sufficient in 90% of the situations I find myself in. Even 35mm isn’t a deal-breaker; I have two compact film cameras with fixed 35mm lenses that I’ve used with quite satisfactory results.

With these requirements in mind, I did some research on the web and found a compact digital camera I’m quite pleased with: the Panasonic DMC-FP8. I found and bought a new one for a mere $160.  I think I was somewhat influenced by my mostly positive experience with the Panasonic DMC-LX3; even though its quite different in many ways from the LX3, the FP8 is similar enough to the LX3 in terms of features and performance that I have found it a comfortable and somewhat familiar photographic ally.

Panasonic DMC-FP8

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP8

Here are some specs for the FP8:

  • Camera Effective Pixels: 12.1 megapixels
  • Aperture: F3.3 – 5.9 / 2-Step (F3.3 – 10 (W) / F5.9 – 18 (T))
  • Focal Length: f=5.0-23.0mm (28-128mm in 35mm equiv.)
  • Lens: LEICA DC VARIO-ELMAR, 10 elements in 8 groups, (5 Aspherical Lenses / 1 ED lens)
  • ISO Sensitivity: Auto /100 / 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600 (High Sensitivity Mode : Auto(1600 – 6400) )
  • AF Metering: Face / Touch AF/AE Tracking / Multi (11pt) / 1pt HS / 1pt / Spot
  • Viewfinder: No
  • LCD Monitor: 2.7″ TFT Screen LCD Display (230K dots), Field of View : approx. 100%
  • Built-in Flash
  • Power O.I.S. Image Stabilization
  • Weight(lbs): Approx. 0.29 lb; Approx. 0.34 lb with Battery and SD Memory Card
  • Dimensions (H x W x D): 2.35” x 3.77” x 0.80”

The lens is made by Leica and it’s a “folding lens” that is flush with the outside of the camera; it never protrudes past the surface of the camera even when zoomed out to 128mm. The maximum aperture on the lens is f/3.3. This is slightly smaller than f/2.8, however it’s only about one-third of a stop different (f/4 is a full stop slower than f/2.8) and its noise at 800 ISO is actually slightly better (based on my memory) than the LX3’s was; so the better performance at higher ISOs helps make up for the ever so slightly slower than ideal lens.

I haven’t had the camera for long, but I can tell you the focusing speed and sharpness of the lens–especially at 28mm f/3.3–has impressed me. And the image stabilization seems to do a very nice job at slow shutter speeds.

Plant by Window

DMC-FP8, 125 ISO, f/3.3, 1/40 sec

Trampoline Fun

DMC-FP8, 80 ISO, f/3.3, 1/125 sec

I’m still experimenting with the different menu settings, but so far, I like what I’ve seen. The FP8’s performance when the lens is zoomed out past 28mm seems less good to me; but I like having that extra zoom range in special instances…it could come in handy.

So, if you find yourself with similar preferences and requirements to the ones I’ve described for myself here in regard to a compact digital camera, I recommend you check out the Panasonic DMC-FP8 for yourself!

(Note: the Panasonic DMC-FP8 has actually been discontinued, but you can still get it new online. This is one of the reasons you can get it so inexpensively! The only way to get this same lens in a current model is to buy the $300-$400 DMC-TS2.)



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Making Auto ISO Actually Useful

Share

I thought Auto ISO was going to be a great feature…until I started using it!

I borrowed a Canon 5D Mark II from Canon Professional Services a few times and wanted to try out the auto ISO feature, which covers 100-3200 ISO. I mean, how many times have I suddenly gone from a low-light situation to a bright-light situation while photographing (e.g., a bridal couple coming out from inside a dark church to the bright sunshine outdoors) and forgot or didn’t have a chance to change the ISO from 1600 or 3200 to 200 or 100?

I normally shoot in either aperture priority or manual exposure mode. It turns out that the 5D Mark II defaults to 400 ISO in manual mode (i.e., it doesn’t really do anything in manual mode). In aperture priority, it will look for a shutter speed + ISO combination that gives the “proper” exposure given the aperture you’ve selected. This would be OK if the camera didn’t “think” that a shutter speed as low as 1/20 or 1/15 sec was acceptable in low light, or that a high ISO of 800 or 1600 in conjunction with an unnecessarily high shutter speed of 1/4000 or 1/8000 sec was just peachy when you’ve moved outdoors into plenty of daylight.

The problem is that you can’t set a minimum or maximum shutter speed on the 5D Mark II, so you can’t prevent it from deciding to use unacceptably slow shutter speeds or unnecessarily high ISOs.

With the Canon 1D Mark IV, not only *can* you set minimum and maximum shutter speeds, but auto ISO still works in manual exposure mode! When I discovered this (auto ISO in manual mode), I thought I would never have a reason to use aperture priority with the 1D. Heck, you can decide your ideal aperture and shutter speed, and then let the camera choose the lowest ISO that still yields a proper exposure….like having simultaneous aperture and shutter speed priority with auto exposure!

It turns out there’s one little “fly in the ointment” with auto ISO in manual mode on the 1D: you can’t use the “*” button to fix exposure and recompose the shot like you can in aperture or shutter priority. I would think this is something Canon could change with a simple firmware update (Canon, are you listening?).

There’s another potential problem with using auto ISO in manual mode on the 1D that I’ll mention a little later in this post; but the purpose of this post is to discuss making auto ISO useful, regardless of which camera you own. So, back to the question…

How do you make auto ISO actually useful?

It depends on your camera. Here’s a short decision tree I’ve devised:

A) If you have a camera that allows the setting of minimum and maximum shutter speeds and you plan to shoot in something other than shutter priority mode, set these min and max shutter speeds accordingly to keep the camera from selecting too low shutter speeds or too high ISOs when set for auto ISO. I find that the 1D actually tends to seek a low ISO if possible, so I set the min possible shutter speed to something like 1/60 sec and don’t worry about the max shutter speed. A little testing with your own camera should allow you to figure out the best settings for it.

B) If you can’t set minimum or maximum shutter speeds, you may be better off using shutter priority (versus aperture priority, program, full auto, or what have you). If you’re controlling the shutter speed, you can make sure it’s fast enough to keep your dark indoor images from being blurred due to camera shake or movement of your subject. Also, you can make sure it’s not so fast that it forces the camera to choose higher than necessary ISOs when there’s plenty of light (e.g., outdoors on a bright day). You have to be somewhat careful to change it from slower speeds to higher speeds when you step outdoors into bright conditions from a dark indoor situation. If your lens is able to constrict to small apertures–like f/16, f/22 or even smaller–you should be fine if you forget initially. If you don’t want the aperture to be so small (e.g., because you don’t want the depth of field to be large), make sure to increase the shutter speed in the new brighter scene as soon as you can.

The main reason to use auto ISO is to have your camera automatically use the lowest ISO possible given the prevailing light level so that image noise is kept to a minimum. Each camera comes with its own algorithm that decides what combination of aperture size, shutter speed, and ISO to use for any particular shot. If you shoot in full auto mode, the camera chooses some combination of all three parameters to get a good exposure. If you shoot aperture priority with auto ISO, you’ve taken away aperture size as a parameter and the camera will vary only shutter speed and ISO to get the correct exposure. If you shoot shutter priority with auto ISO, you’ve taken away shutter speed as a parameter and the camera will vary only aperture size and ISO to get the correct exposure.

What’s at issue here is what the camera decides to do with the 2-3 parameters it’s varying. In automatic mode, your camera is varying all 3 parameters and you’ve got little control over its decisions. Being able to specify a minimum and/or maximum shutter speed can give you *some* control, but not many cameras include this ability.

If you fix the aperture size (via aperture priority) at, say, f/4, the camera could decide to drop the ISO down to 100 and the shutter speed to 1/15 sec to get a proper exposure. It’s difficult to get a non-blurry image at 1/15 sec, especially if the subject is a person or animal which seldom stay perfectly still.

If you fix the shutter speed (via shutter priority) at, say, 1/125 sec, the camera could decide to set the aperture to f/8 and raise the ISO to 3200, even though the lens is capable of an aperture of f/2.8 or larger; this larger aperture could bring the ISO down to 400 or lower, which most photographers I know would prefer.

Unfortunately, most cameras don’t let you tweak their internal algorithms so that it makes its decisions directly in line with your preferences.

The reason I got excited about the 1D Mark IV’s ability to shoot auto ISO in manual mode is that you can fix *both* the aperture size and the shutter speed, and only allow the ISO to vary to obtain the correct exposure. I found two problems with it however. First, there’s the problem I mentioned where you can’t press the “*” button, which fixes the exposure, and then recompose the shot (something that Canon may be able to change in the firmware). The other potential problem is if it’s very bright outside, the camera may not be able to find a ISO low enough to get a proper exposure with your selected aperture + shutter settings, leading to a potentially badly over-exposed image.

Ultimately, the best way to make auto ISO work for you is test it with your own camera in different modes with different settings and see which combination gets closest to the way you want your camera to operate. You may find a combination that gets agreeably close to your preferences. Or you may–as many have–simply give up on auto ISO altogether!

If auto ISO is important to you, it would be best to test various cameras first–perhaps using some of the tips I’ve mentioned in this post–before you actually make your camera purchase.



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Ready for Anything: Wedding, Event, and Portrait Photography

Share

When I’m photographing a wedding, I’m using the equipment I own that gives me the best quality images–e.g., my Canon 1-series DSLR + an “L” zoom lens or my prime lenses. Same with my portrait sessions. (Clients like to see that you are using expensive camera equipment when they’re paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for your services; it probably shouldn’t be that way; but, believe me, it truly makes a difference to some clients.)

But prime lenses and the best quality zoom lenses cover limited focal lengths; there’s always a trade-off between optical image quality and the range of focal lengths a zoom lens covers. Normally a prime lens–which only covers one fixed focal length–provides the epitome of image quality but the least flexibility in terms of focal length range. And professional quality zoom lenses–like the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS–extend focal length flexibility with a slight, but usually acceptable, drop in image quality. However, any one of these high-quality professional zoom lenses necessarily leave out a large part of the focal length range photographers commonly like to cover–e.g., 24-300mm.

Whenever I am covering a wedding (or other event) or photographing a portrait session, fleeting moments appear in front of me that I may not be able to capture well with the focal length or lengths available to me with the lens currently on my camera, and there often isn’t time to change my lens before the moment has passed. Also, there is occasionally a need for some flash lighting that may or may not be available on my camera at that moment.

So, what do you do to insure that you are “ready for anything”?

First, I try to use a lens on my primary DSLR that can capture 80% or more of the types of images I’m trying to capture during any particular stretch of the session or event. A prime lens may suit this purpose (e.g., a large max aperture prime lens when low lighting is an issue), or a high-quality professional zoom lens might be the way to go.

What about those other 20% (or so) unexpected shots? I like to have a relatively small DSLR with a prime or zoom lens (the lens should be relatively small & light as well) on my hip, and this lens should cover a portion of the 24-300mm range not being covered by the lens on my primary camera.

Now, I’ve photographed many weddings and portrait sessions with two large DSLRs hanging on me (e.g., a 1-series and a 5D with grip) and trying to capture roughly equal numbers of photos with each camera. It’s a pain in the butt in many ways. Two large cameras weigh a lot and they can get tangled up–even when you start using some of these innovations now available to get one or both of the cameras off of your neck (I’ve experimented with some of them); also it’s amazing how easy the camera you’re not currently using can get bumped and the settings messed up such that its not available for that quick shot! The standard configuration here is having two cameras (with the same or similar crop factor), one with a 24-70mm lens and the other with a 70-200mm lens.

I have found that relying on one main camera + lens for 80% or more of your shots (during any particular stretch of an event or session) truly simplifies things and makes it easier to focus and enjoy doing the photography: less weight, less time switching back-and-forth between cameras. And if the second camera is one of the smaller, less expensive DSLRs, they come with a built-in flash just in case you need it; this is *much* more portable than having one of the professional DSLRs that require an attached flash unit.

I just photographed a fashion show this past weekend. My primary camera + lens was a Canon 1D with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, which covered more than 90% of the shots I wanted to get. However, at my side I had my good old Canon 20D with a 28mm f/1.8  lens to grab any wide angle shots that might appear before me on short notice. This combination worked great!

The actual combination of lenses you’ll want to use will depend on the event, and may even change during the course of a particular event–e.g., for a wedding, I normally use different lenses for the “getting ready” photos than I use for the ceremony photos. For outdoor portrait sessions, I’m finding that a 24-105 lens on a 1.3 crop factor Canon 1-series DSLR works well for more than 80% of the photos; match that with a telephoto zoom on a small DSLR (e.g., 100-300 mm) and you’ll also be able to zoom in for some close-up shots from a comfortable (for both you and the subject) distance.

So, if you photograph event and/or portrait sessions and you don’t want to buy or carry around two large and expensive DSLR cameras–or spend the time and experience the hassle of regularly switching back-and-forth between them–then consider buying and using one expensive “primary” camera and lens. Supplement it with a cheaper and smaller camera + lens “safety net” at your hip that can fill in all or part of the critical focal range you’ve necessarily had to leave out to maintain the single, high-quality camera and lens configuration, and you’ll be “ready for anything”…:-).



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Photography and Peak Experience

Share

Psychologist Abraham Maslow formalized and popularized the term “Peak Experience” in the 1960s. According to Maslow, peak experiences are especially joyous and exciting moments in life, involving sudden feelings of intense happiness and well-being, wonder and awe, and possibly also involving an awareness of transcendental unity or knowledge of higher truth.

Maslow (1970) describes how the peak experience tends to be uplifting and ego-transcending; it releases creative energies; it affirms the meaning and value of existence; it gives a sense of purpose to the individual; it gives a feeling of integration; it leaves a permanent mark on the individual, evidently changing them for the better. Peak experiences can be therapeutic in that they tend to increase the individual’s free will, self-determination, creativity, and empathy (see wikipedia for more on Maslow and peak experience).

What does peak experience have to do with photography?

I believe there is–and have personally experienced–a synergistic relationship between photography and peak experience. That is, I have found that photography can help to bring on peak experiences; and also, that peak experiences often feed positively into photography to help create especially compelling and transcendent images.

Truth be told, in fact, I think the main reason I have continued to pursue photography is because of its ability to help me have these “peak experiences”. When you recognize something transcendent in a scene you are photographing and are able to capture it, or later on when looking through your photos, you see some bit of beauty or truth you would have never seen without the stop-action capability of still photography, you are beholding the “magic” photography provides for entering peak psychological (and spiritual?) states.

Of course, photography isn’t the only way to truth, beauty, and peak experiences. Other common means are other artistic pursuits, art appreciation, meditation, yoga, intense physical exertion, relationships with others, exposure to nature, and so on. Photography just happens to be a means that suits me and my life situation well at this point, and may (or may not) continue to be a particularly effective and convenient means for the rest of my life.

I have also found that intense physical activity, writing, reading, and exposure to nature have gone a long way toward helping me achieve “higher” states of consciousness. And whenever possible, I try to combine them and/or play them off of one another to help prolong and spread the influence of my transcendent experiences from one sector of my life & pursuits to another.

I recently bought and read the book “Tao of Photography: Seeing Beyond Seeing“, By Philippe L. Gross, S.I. Shapiro. In most respects, I think it’s worth reading. It showcases many inspiring photos from the author Gross and several significant photographers from photography’s history (e.g,. Minor White, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Wynn Bullock, Ansel Adams, etc).

The book makes the case that the photographer’s state of mind and all that that includes (clarity of perception, stillness/centeredness, patience, relaxed expectations) is the most important factor determining whether a “successful” photograph will be made. It acknowledges that some technical knowledge and expertise are required to make an effective or compelling photograph, but that these requirements are relatively easily acquired and pale in importance compared to the photographer’s state of mind and “being”.

I am in 98% agreement with the book’s message; the photographer’s state of mind is critical in making transcendent photographs. Without the proper mental disposition and awareness, inspired photos are unlikely to happen. When photography students are taught things like “The Rule of Thirds”, such mental constraints can actually get in the way of making inspired photos. Here are some other “barriers to seeing” listed in the book (paraphrased):

  • The need to conform, win approval, or be a member of a group; the inability to disagree, be unpopular, or stand alone.
  • Over-respect for authority or a great practitioner; becoming a disciple, loyal follower, and unable to affirm oneself.
  • The need to be dominant and in control versus non-interfering and receptive.
  • The need to rubricize and categorize versus simply experiencing.
  • Intolerance of ambiguity.
  • The need for radical novelty versus seeing what is special in the familiar.

As I said, I think this book is worth reading and I’m mostly in agreement with it. Ironically, my biggest disappointment in the book is that it presents its case in a somewhat uninspired, almost “academic” way! The photography is inspiring, the ideas are inspiring, but the writing is kinda, well, uninspiring and not as compelling or insightful as I would have expected. Yet, there aren’t a lot of other options out there covering these ideas. (Here are a few others that may at least get close to some of these issues if you’re interested.)

So, getting back to Maslow (who, by the way, is mentioned a few times in The Tao of Photography)…

I have found photography to be an effective vehicle for achieving peak experiences, and for peak experiences to inform and feed my photography in a way that brings it to a higher level. When things are going optimally, a reverberative cycle is created in which the peak experience feeds into the quality of the photo, which then–being inspired and transcendent–flows back to me in the form of an even more elevated state of peak experience. This elevated perceptual state then further influences the photos I’m capturing, leading to photos that are even more original and/or transcendent.

I imagine that if this feedback cycle were to continue indefinitely, the photographer would likely lose himself and go insane or something! The reality is that the cycle is usually somewhat short-lived; and also, that since the photographer is, in fact, focusing his heightened perception on physical reality (that’s what’s in his viewfinder!), it tends to fortuitously tether him to physical reality–i.e., to keep him somewhat “grounded”.

Even though this highly exhilerating feedback loop is fairly short-lived, the effects of it are not; there’s often a residual “aura” of stimulation that goes on to enhance the photographer’s thoughts and perceptions the rest of the day–if not over the course of multiple days–though at a lower, more sustainable level.

I think I could on and on about the relationship between photography and peak experience, but I think it may be an issue better explored in book format due to the amount of discussion involved to really flesh it out. Maybe I’ll write that book! Or maybe I’ll just return to the subject multiple times here at the blog.

In any case, I think peak experiences are the true reason I do many of the things I do in life, including photography. Photography is just a means to get there, and it is a means I–and hopefully you too–quite enjoy…:-).



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Does Your Camera Equipment Matter?

Share

With recently published photography books full of photos taken with cell phone cameras and plenty of discussions on the web about whether you need expensive/professional camera equipment to take either professional or “art worthy” photographs, I thought I’d chime in on the topic because, in some respects, I’ve been on both sides.

Does your camera equipment matter?

My response (which is probably influenced by my background in social science research) is: it depends.

I totally agree that photographic art can be made by almost any sort of photographic equipment, ranging (cost-wise) from cheap plastic, home-made (e.g., pinhole), and cell phone cameras to $40,000+ medium format digital cameras. The cost or sophistication of the equipment is not what makes it art; it’s the photographer’s vision and use of the equipment that makes it art. I have absolutely no reservations about the truth of this statement.

How about the issue of creating a “professional” image with any sort of equipment?

If you are creating an image for publication, most publishers require a fairly high resolution image–e.g., much higher than created by a 2 megapixel cell phone camera. Even if you were able to do some sophisticated resizing of your 2 megapixel cell phone image with special software to get it up to a higher resolution, the image quality will necessarily degrade to some degree. Then there’s the issue of whether the image needs to actually show high-quality detail. $40,000 medium format digital cameras resolve an amazing amount of detail (think high-resolution images of prepared food); the lenses on cell phones and toy cameras resolve very little fine detail. Another thing publishers are really picky about: images must have very little digital noise. Most cell phone cameras and compact digital cameras start showing significant digital noise at relatively low ISOs; expensive digital SLR cameras really excel at keeping digital noise low in images.

Ultimately, it comes down to whatever the publisher or client wants. I can tell you the stock photo houses definitely think publishers want high quality, low noise, high resolution images produced by “professional” camera equipment; they are usually *very* particular about these requirements.

How about portrait and wedding photography? Does camera equipment matter there?

When I am being paid hundreds or thousands of dollars by a client to photograph their family or wedding, you can bet they’re looking for high-end, “commercial” quality images from me. Also, I specialize in candid photography (both for my portrait sessions and weddings); I need equipment that can focus fast, on moving targets, and can take pictures whether there’s plenty of light or barely any light at all (e.g., in a dark reception hall at night). Without the proper equipment, some of the photography I do–photography that fits my artistic vision in the context of, say, a dark ballroom–would not be possible. When clients pay you to take photos at a wedding, you can’t tell them: “Sorry, my camera was unable to take a photo of the wedding couple during their first dance that actually made their faces, expressions, or body language clearly recognizable. I hope that having only grainy and blurry ‘artistic’ photos of the dance are ok”!!

When I am taking photos of my children when we’re out and about or on vacation, I use all sorts of cameras (film, digital, plastic, old, new, etc). When I’m doing street photography and personal fine art photography, I also play around with different makeshift/unprofessional camera equipment. It’s fun and it helps me break out of uncreative ruts!

But here’s the thing: even when I’m playing around and being creative, the equipment affects what I can do. If I’ve got in mind to take an artsy shot of people indoors in low light without using a flash, then I probably don’t want to use my Holga film camera with its f/13 lens and the 200 ISO medium format film I have in it; I would end up with a photo of nothing because it would be totally underexposed! If you’ve got a certain artistic vision in mind, knowing what equipment will achieve the effect you’re looking for can be the difference between realizing your artistic vision and not.

So, does your camera equipment matter?

In some ways, it *always* matters: the equipment determines to some degree what is possible. However, I agree that with these constraints come opportunities for creative expansion or innovation. Creative persons often need structure or limitations to “react against” to reach something new.

When you’re talkin’ pure creative expression, this sort of expansion beyond preconceived constraints and notions is an important and worthwhile endeavor. However, when you’re talking about commissioned work, this isn’t an easy climb and minds have to be changed!

It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that some creative person will make an art form out of cell phone photography of weddings such that people will actually pay that person thousands of dollars to bring a cell phone to their weddings and do their creative cell phone photographic magic! However, a preference for those types of images over the more professional/commercial-looking photos most wedding clients currently expect is gonna take quite some marketing and perception changing.

And–even though it shouldn’t matter–think of the cognitive dissonance wedding couples will have to overcome in order to be convinced to shell out big bucks to a photographer using camera equipment that is no better than the cameras posessed by 95% of the wedding guests!…:p

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.



Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!